Although the Casket Letters were accepted by the inquiry as genuine after a study of the
handwriting, and of the information contained therein, and were generally held to be certain proof of guilt if authentic, the inquiry reached the conclusion that nothing was proven. From the start, this could have been predicted as the only conclusion that would satisfy Elizabeth. James MacKay comments that one of the stranger 'trials' in legal history ended with no finding of guilt with the result that the accusers went home to Scotland and the accused remained detained in 'protective custody'.
It is impossible now to prove the case either way. Without the Casket Letters, there would have been no case against Mary, and with hindsight it is difficult to say that any of the major parties involved considered the truth to be a priority. However, it is notable that Lady Antonia Fraser, James MacKay, and John Guy who have written well-respected biographies of Mary come to the same conclusion that they were forged. Guy has actually examined the Elizabethan transcripts of the letters rather than relying upon later printed copies. He points out that the letters are disjointed. He also draws attention to the fact that the French version of one of the letters is bad in its use of language and grammar. Mary was an educated woman who could read, write, and speak French fluently. The construction of one of the letters in French has mistakes that a woman with her understanding would not make.
Another point made by these commentators is that the Casket Letters did not appear until the Conference of York. Mary had been forced to abdicate in 1567 and held captive for the best part of a year in Scotland. No reference can be found to the letters being used as evidence against Mary during this period. There was every reason for these letters to be made public to support her imprisonment and forced abdication. The originals disappeared after the Conference of York, thus adding to the sense that the letters were probably forged.
Though Mary Stuart has not been canonised by the Catholic Church, many consider her a martyr, and there are relics of her. Her prayer book was long shown in France. Her apologist published, in an English journal, a sonnet which Mary was said to have composed, written with her own hand in this book. A celebrated German actress, Mrs. Hendel-Schutz, who excited admiration by her attitudes, and performed
Friedrich Schiller's "Maria" with great applause in several German cities, affirmed that a cross which she wore on her neck was the very same that once belonged to the unfortunate queen.
Relics of this description have never yet been subjected to the proof of their authenticity. If there is anything which may be reasonably believed to have once been the property of the queen, it is the veil with which she covered her head on the scaffold, after the executioner had wounded the unfortunate victim in the shoulder by a false blow (whether from awkwardness or confusion is uncertain). This veil came into the possession of Sir
J.C. Hippisley, who claimed to be descended from the
House of Stuart on his mother's side. In 1818, he had an engraving made from it by
Matteo Diottavi in
Rome and gave copies to his friends. However, the eagerness with which the executioners burned her clothing and the executioners' block may mean that it will never be possible to be certain.
The veil is embroidered with gold spangles by (as is said) the queen's own hand, in regular rows crossing each other, so as to form small squares, and edged with a gold border, to which another border has been subsequently joined, in which the following words are embroidered in letters of gold:
: "Velum Serenissimæ Mariæ, Scotiæ et Galliæ Reginæ Martyris, quo induebatur dum ab Heretica ad mortem iniustissimam condemnata fuit. Anno Sal. MDLXXXVI. a nobilissima matrona Anglicana diu conservatum et tandem, donationis ergo Deo, Societati Jesu consecratum."
On the plate there is an inscription, with a double certificate of its authenticity, which states, that this veil, a family treasure of the expelled house of Stuart, was finally in possession of the last branch of that family,
Henry Benedict Stuart, the Cardinal of York, who preserved it for many years in his private chapel, among the most precious relics, and at his death bequeathed it to Sir
John Hippisley, together with a valuable
Plutarch, a Codex with painted (illuminated) letters, and a gold coin struck in Scotland during Mary's reign.
The plate was specially consecrated by
Pope Pius VII in his palace on the
Quirinal, April 29 1818. Hippisley, during a former residence at
Rome, had been very intimate with the cardinal of York, and was instrumental in obtaining for him, when he with the other cardinals emigrated to
Venice in 1798, a pension of £4,000 a year from King
George IV of the United Kingdom, then
Prince of Wales. But for the pension, the fugitive cardinal, whose revenues were all seized by the forces of the
French Revolution, would have been exposed to the greatest distress.
The cardinal desired to requite this service by the bequest of what he considered so valuable. According to a note on the plate, the veil is eighty-nine English inches long, and forty-three broad, so that it seems to have been rather a kind of shawl or scarf than a veil. Melville in his Memoirs, which Schiller had read, speaks of a handkerchief belonging to the queen, which she gave away before her death, and Schiller founds upon this anecdote the well-known words of the farewell scene, addressed to Hannah Kennedy.
: "Accept this handkerchief! with my own hand
: For thee I've work'd it in my hours of sadness
: And interwoven with my scalding tears:
: With this thou'lt bind my eyes."
